Deadline Looming for Microsoft in Antitrust Case 397
gaijincory writes "The International Herald Tribune reminds us that the end of the month is Microsoft's deadline to comply with the European Commission's antitrust ruling. The fine for non-compliance? A cool $5 million per day."
And at that rate... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And at that rate... (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft has an average daily global sales revenue of $100 million. $5 million is about 5% of their global sales. Their profit margins far exceed 5%, therefore they could continue to pay their daily fine to the E.U. and still make a profit every day.
Also, the E.U. already fined them about $600 million in addition to the prospective daily fine. Thats the same as about four months worth of the daily $5 million fine.
Re:And at that rate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And at that rate... (Score:2)
As to the fine, I suspect that MS will simply make it up elsewhere (rais the prices of Office and Windows
Re:And at that rate... (Score:2)
There is no such thing as shareholders complaining, who the hell cares if some grandma is complaining about her 401K.
Re:And at that rate... (Score:3, Insightful)
How many MS investors believe that they're actually more predatory than Bill and Steve?
I think the high rolles might be inclined to let the situation ride for a while if they think the MS management is on top of it. Naturally, this is a tricky situation to manage, because Ballmer and Gates can't exactly publicly reassure their investors that they are planning to game the system and make fools out of the regulators. They can't even wink or nod.
It's like high diplomacy; if they do want to ga
Re:And at that rate... (Score:5, Funny)
The other thing is they could just say, "Due to unforeseen expenses, Microsoft will be increasing the cost of all products sold in the European Union by 50 cents per day."
Hell, as long as the courts have labelled you a monopoly, you might as well act like it.
Re:And at that rate... (Score:2)
Re:And at that rate... (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And at that rate... (Score:2, Interesting)
Bill Will Fill (Score:2)
Re:Bill Will Fill (Score:2, Interesting)
IT's not going to happen, I know. I am sure it would work well though.
Bo (Vesterdorf) Knows Fineprint... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bill Will Fill (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bill Will Fill (Score:4, Interesting)
Then when he had his house built, he contested the assessment on it because he said that the high cost was largely due to the number of change orders involved in the construction, and did not accurately reflect the true market value of the house. Again, the property taxes were piddly compared to his income.
Re:Bill Will Fill (Score:3, Insightful)
Cost of doing business? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cost of doing business? (Score:5, Insightful)
The hit on Microsoft's bottom line and the failure to meet earnings projections would have adverse effects on its share price.
Re:Cost of doing business? (Score:2)
The EU is at a pretty powerful position here - I hope that they realise it.
Re:Cost of doing business? (Score:2)
Shit, where's the edit button?
Re:Cost of doing business? (Score:4, Insightful)
5% of global sales? They'd be fine then... not to mention the fact that that is the maximum fine. It's just like getting the maximum fine for graffiti on trains - you never get it.
Re:Cost of doing business? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even rich and powerful graffiti artists with a history of giving the judge the finger?
Re:Cost of doing business? (Score:2, Informative)
And judges tend to be wary of slapping someone too hard when that person pretty much [theregister.co.uk] owns their boss [ffii.org].
Why do you think Gates and MS are so happy to give the finger so often and so liberally? Because no-one will ever dare to call them out on it - the worst that happens is sanctions against MS that then get argued down on appeal [theregister.co.uk], creatively "misunderstood" [slashdot.org] or just blatantly ignored [64.233.183.104].
Re:Cost of doing business? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly? Hardly, if it insulates us from the kind of corporate state America is becoming. However, I'd dispute that it will insulate us perfectly - we also have something of a tradition of following the US culturally in recent times (well, more the UK than Europe as a whole, but it still has influence, even in F
Re:Cost of doing business? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see that riseing if they refuse to comply
Ofcourse if they continue to stand oposed to the law then i am very sure the EU will have no other choice but to enforce the compliance , companys can not be allowed to abuse the law
If the EU does nothing it sets a rather dangerous precedent in allowing a company to flaunt the law , If microsoft refuses to comply after one year i can honestly see the EU making move
Re:Cost of doing business? (Score:2)
"We'll give you a choise between doing this and paying 5 million a day."
The ruling was instead more along the lines of:
"You have to do this. To force you, we'll give you a fine of 5 million a day if it ain't done by $date"
The difference is that the fine is meant to be forcing them into compliance. If they ignored the fine, simply paid up and stayed out of compliance, the court would likely just add a zero on the fine and try again. Repeat as nesseca
Re:Cost of doing business? (Score:2)
Re:Cost of doing business? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know, but it may make doing business in EU a cost, or a non/low-profit activity whose sole purpose is to maintain the world dominance.
Staying in EU may then only be motivated by the domino theory: If one country shifts to the "evil" side (that is whatever is oposed to Microsoft) then others will follow.
The alternative for Microsoft is to pass on the bill to the customers increasing the incensitive to using something more economically viable.
Re:Cost of doing business? (Score:3, Insightful)
They will never pay (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't be redicilous - they will find their way around it. The same as they find their way around not paying taxes,
Re:They will never pay (Score:3, Informative)
btw, ms wouldn't need to pay - eu could just TAKE the money from them. if ms would continue to do nothing it could eventually be barred from operating... who knows, if they gave the finger long enough maybe even exempt them from any copyright protections. would that suck, eh?
you think ms doesn't pay taxes in eu?
Re:They will never pay (Score:5, Funny)
It's spelled "nitwit" you fucking dimwit.
I would comply! (Score:2)
what is to stop the EU (Score:4, Interesting)
Their own regulations (Score:5, Informative)
The appropriate Guidelines [eu.int]
Re:what is to stop the EU (Score:2)
MicroWing (Score:4, Funny)
Executive: Somebody set up us the lawsuit.
Executive: We get subpoena.
Bill: What !
Bill: Main screen turn on.
Bill: It's you!
Judge: How are you gentlemen!
Judge: All your $5 million are belong to us.
Bill: What you say!
Judge: You have no chance to win the case make your time.
Judge: HA HA HA HA
Re:MicroWing (Score:2)
It has to include a beowulf cluster of natalie portman's hot grits in soviet russia with old korean men. While BSD is dying in the background. CommanderTaco's penis. Breast. My iPod exploded. I for one welcome our new More cowbell overlords.
When can we get some new jokes? Some of these are really old, and most of them are just bad.
Re:MicroWing (Score:3, Funny)
Executive: Do you know what you doing?
Bill: Pay 5 millions.
Bill: For greater profit.
Re:MicroWing (Score:2, Funny)
-------------
+1 sarcasm
to point out the obvious. (Score:2, Interesting)
Way too little (Score:4, Insightful)
A formal letter? When did the world officially lose all its balls.
Unfortunately $5 million a day to Microsoft doesn't really mean much. A real way to get their attention would be to tell them comply or peddle your crap OS elsewhere.
Chump change... (Score:2)
Re:Chump change... (Score:2)
Re:Chump change... (Score:2)
Re:Chump change... (Score:2)
Re:Chump change... (Score:2)
I heard a story a long time ago that it might not be true. A court ruled against this rich guy that he had to pay $1000 a day until he gives into the court's demands. He wrote a check for six months right then and there, and was willing to keep on going until the court backed off during the appeals process. I'm not sure how it turned out -- if it was true. Apparently, you can fleece a rich man only so much.
Re:Chump change... (Score:2)
of course it isn't. The judge would lock him up for contempt.
Re:Chump change... (Score:2)
Don't be sure about that. I heard one guy wrote a check to the court on a pair of clean underwear and the judge found him in contempt, but a higher court ruled that it was legal tender and forced the judge to accept it anyway.
Re:Chump change... (Score:2)
Hmmm... This is
Re:Chump change... (Score:2)
The privilige of pissing their money on the courts? Fines are supposed to hurt to encourage a change in behavior. Some companies are so big that a daily fine is nothing more than flea bite on the elephant's ass.
I remember that there used to be a judge who insisted on the CEOs to come in person to plead on behalf of their corporations instead of sending a squad of attorneys, and would throw them in jail if they didn't show. Showing up or no
expect to see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:expect to see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, Eurpoean Commission members? (Score:4, Funny)
Most likely payment method... (Score:5, Insightful)
Kroes, the European competition commissioner. (Score:2, Insightful)
Compliance (Score:4, Insightful)
First, and foremost, as a previous post said, they simply cant afford a 5 mil $ a day hit to the bottom line. I doubt they make 5 million+ a day in europe, and even if they did, not enough of it would be from their practices that they're being asked to stop.
Second, and almost equally important is a show of good faith that the EU wants to see from them. If they were to not comply, and/or perhaps refuse to pay the fine (extremely unlikely) that would end up with a lot of powerful people angry at them pretty quickly. My guess is that the US state department would lean on MSFT to cooperate w/ the EU. The U.S. simply cant afford to have one of it's premier companies acting in bad faith, as it would reflect poorly on Americans (whether that should be the case is another argument, but the fact is that many foriegners view America in part through it's major corporations, i.e. MSFT, McDonalds, CocaCola, etc)
From a buisness perspective, I expect them to have whatever needs to be done done by the deadline, or very close to it.
On the curiosity side, would someone care to outline exactly what it is the EU is demanding that MSFT do to 'comply'?
Re:Compliance (Score:2)
Re:Compliance (Score:5, Informative)
The fine mentioned by the EU is up to 5% of Microsoft's worldwide sales (the absolute maximum according to EU law is 10%). As they currently make about 100 million a day, that translates to about 5 million. I expect that more than 5% of their worldwide sales come from the EU, so they probably make more than 5 million a day in Europe.
This is mentioned briefly in the article. Compliance requires basically two things: distribute Windows without the Media Player and document the API or protocols used in some server products so that competitors can create products that can talk to Microsoft's products.
Personally, I am more interested in the second requirement as it could be beneficial to Linux and free/open source software. I also heard that the EU is not happy with the way Microsoft handled that part (restrictive licensing for the documentation) so there is hope that they will force Microsoft to be more open.
As the old joke goes... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait, he does.
- shadowmatter
Chump change (Score:2)
Re:Chump change (Score:3, Informative)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/182966_msft buyback21.html [nwsource.com]
All those years of paying for growth with new shares is coming back to bite Microsoft. Although the insiders look like they will be able to cash out and leave others holding the bag.
This fine would be major. MS has been cutting a billion or so each quarter over the past year just to meet street numbers and keep the stock from tanking.
graphics error (Score:5, Funny)
IHT does not get it (Score:2, Informative)
IHT (Score:2, Interesting)
Somebody needs to hire a web-designer who wasn't trained on Frontpage.
Also - a minor point, the $47 billion that MS apparently has, is not cash under the pillow. What it does have is a share value (not sure of terminology) of $47 billion.
Once shareholders see that shrinking - and believe me, they're watchi
Re:IHT--WRONG (Score:4, Informative)
Actually you are wrong. I do not know the exact figure but Microsoft does have $40-$50 Billion in cash.
The term you are looking for is Market Capitalization which is the value of outstanding shares of Microsoft multiplied by the current stock value. Current MSFT has a MarketCap of $278.5 Billion [yahoo.com]. Change in the Market cap is caused by change in M$ stock price. Investors cause the change, not the other way around. i.e. If investors are pleased with MSFT they bid the stock price up which raises the MarketCap; if investors are unhappy with MSFT the stock price goes down lowering the MarketCap.
They'll comply! Why not? (Score:2)
The power of the competition minister is not fines (Score:4, Interesting)
However, the treaty of Rome and subsequent enabling treaties which empower the EU compeitition ministry to do this also gives them one other important power which they have so far not used; the right to set aside and void contracts. This was originally intended to set asside member state and commercial contracts which were created under unfair bids, but I don't recall seeing anything in the treaty language nessisarly limiting it's action in this regard other than past uses. What if the EU competition ministry really grew a set, and choose instead to try and void the Microsoft EULA within the European Union as an instrument of unfair bargaining by an illegal monopoly? It may just actually have the authority to do this. Certainly it does have the clear authority, which it has used before, to explicitly cancel existing government and private contracts, though would normally do so individually rather than wholesale. Certainly if they even tried to do this, whether attacking large individual contracts, or, wholesale liberation of their consumers, it would be a much more effective action against Microsoft's monoply business practices than any piddly fine...
Can't define compliance but know when they see it (Score:3, Informative)
"We don't know exactly what we want you to do, so make proposals until we tell you one is adequate. By the way, if you don't come up with a proposal we like by the deadline, we're going to fine you."
Re:Micro$oft: Master of Deception (Score:2)
I don't think that there is any shortage of talent in the U.S., but if they aren't taking people from MIT, they certainly are taking them here.
Re:Micro$oft: Master of Deception (Score:2, Insightful)
WTF? you link to an entirely irrelevant article.
The spell Microsoft with a $ character
Then put together an entirely illogical argument: perhaps the applicants weren't *good* enough to work at Microsoft? Perhaps the students at MIT didn't *want* to work at Microsoft.
Then you get modded as "Interesting". Mods: what'cha smoking?
Re:Funny thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if the average European citizen doesn't care about this, or haven't even heard about it. The European Commission aren't involved in a popularity contest, they are supposed to enforce EU law.
Why would you buy a copy of a 'crippled' XP over a full-featured one.
"Vote Cuthulu. This time, why settle for the lesser evil?"
Its not like you cant just disable the features you don't want in XP (well, for the most part).
It is the "most part" that is a problem. Also, they are using their OS monopoly to also gain a online media monopoly. This is illegal.
Even the biggest Linux Zealot would need to admit they have come a long way since Windows 95 and are making improvements in terms of security, etc...
This is NOT about the quality of the products, this is about predatory business practices designed to enforce an unfair monopoly and kill innovation and competition.
Re:Funny thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is almost like a personal vendetta on Microsoft directly from the EU.
Excuse me? Forcing Microsoft to comply with a court order that resulted from them losing a lawsuit because they broke the law is some kind of personal vendetta?
Just because the EU doesn't roll over and let them off like the USA, it doesn't mean they have a personal vendetta. They just make sure people pay for their crimes, even if they are rich.
I wish the EU would, uh, 'bugger off' and leave MS alone to correct their ways.
Why on earth would Microsoft do that? Does a thief stop stealing if he knows he's not going to get punished?
Even the biggest Linux Zealot would need to admit they have come a long way since Windows 95 and are making improvements in terms of security, etc...
This isn't about software quality. This is about illegal anti-competitive actions.
Re:Funny thing is... (Score:2)
Re:Funny thing is... (Score:2)
Re:Funny thing is... (Score:3, Informative)
Licencing the patents/technologies to allow other vendors (including opensource) to interoperate with Windows - that is the significant part that they don't want to do, ever.
Re:This the same EU? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the EU's inability to get their member states to vote favorably on the Constitution, many believe this has more to do with Europeans' sentiments about their national leaders which are pushing the Constitution through.
Re:This the same EU? (Score:4, Informative)
Have you tried reading the draft constitution? Seriously, they need to scrap it and start again. Not because it's bad but because it's barely comprehensible. You can pick bits and pieces you like or dislike and try to sell it on that but trying to sell the thing as a whole is impossible - anyone who pays attention will say "no" simply because they don't understand what they're being asked to agree to.
Re:This the same EU? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you care to elaborate? I found it inspiring, not as stirring as the American Declaration of Independence, but good nonetheless, and clear when it dealt with the inevitably complex relations between still sovereign states. From the preamble...
Our Constitution
-- Thucydides II, 37
Conscious that Europe is a continent that has brought forth civilisation; that its inhabitants, arriving in successive waves from earliest times, have gradually developed the values underlying humanism: equality of persons, freedom, respect for reason,
Drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, the values of which, still present in its heritage, have embedded within the life of society the central role of the human person and his or her inviolable and inalienable rights, and respect for law,
Believing that reunited Europe intends to continue along the path of civilisation, progress and prosperity, for the good of all its inhabitants, including the weakest and most deprived; that it wishes to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress; and that it wishes to deepen the democratic and transparent nature of its public life, and to strive for peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world,
Convinced that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their ancient divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny,
Convinced that, thus "united in its diversity", Europe offers them the best chance of pursuing, with due regard for the rights of each individual and in awareness of their responsibilities towards future generations and the Earth, the great venture which makes of it a special area of human hope,
It is not the blueprint for a Utopia, but then I don't see any but failed Utopias looking around, do you? I'm paying attention, and I'm going to say yes. Personally I think you're playing to the gallery. Just what would a your constitution for a continent with 25 different countries to be united (some of which don't like the idea of a federal parliament at all) look like?
Now you can quote some section of legalese from within the 200 pages which you feel is opaque, but in general I felt it was perfectly readable by ordinary citizens of the union when taken together - that to me is a great achievement, particularly considering it's been written in several languages at once and attempts to integrate treaties going back 40 years. Writing a constitution for a group of countries merging is not the same as writing one for a newly formed country and that is reflected in the length and complexity.
I don't think Europe is yet ready for this kind of ambitious integration, but it will happen at some point in the future.
another opinion (Score:3, Informative)
It's not about ambitious integration, it's about not integrating enough, in a democratic way. The only part in the whole EU that represents directly the 'populace' is the EU parliament. But, while they get some marginal more power as lipservice, the EC (by any oth
Re:This the same EU? (Score:3, Insightful)
China isn't in Europe. Nor is Egypt. Nor were the Aztecs. I don't think I'd count several of the middle Easy civilizations, as Europe either. (though that is debatable)
There were independent civilizations in America long before Europe came and imposed their own.
Western civilization arose in Europe, but there were plenty of others that came before or independently.
Re:This the same EU? (Score:2)
In this particular case, the EU already has the power it needs to enforce these rulings.
Re:This the same EU? (Score:2)
I said some of the rights, not the right to leave.
Why do you think that some supreme court descisions can be appealed to the european court?
Elections about the constitution is a bad idea anyway. It's just a "yes" or "no" question. What does a "no" mean? That it's not going far enough? That you want to leave the EU? (in the case of Denma
Re:This the same EU? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the countries couldn't say "no" then there would be zero point to the process. And you're right, the countries probably will say "no".
The EU is not a country, it is a conglomeration of countries.
Agreed. So Microsoft are pissing off a conglomeration of countries that form the largest single market in the world.
What is their actual power to enforce these laws?
The pooled sovereignty of multiple countries... remember your previous sentence?
Especially seeing as how banning Microsoft on a continent-wide level would be an infringement of each country's right to self-determination.
Don't be absurd, it would be an expression of their right to self determination just like any other multi-lateral arrangements they enter into. Not that Microsoft would get "banned", just compelled to obey by whatever means it takes including power provided by new legislation if it comes to that - playing chicken with governments on that level is just stupid.
I think that someone is going to get a huge wakeup call and I doubt it is going to be Microsoft this time.
In your dreams, sure.
Re:This the same EU? (Score:5, Informative)
This is why, as per the article you mention above, there is a lot of dissent among member states about what the constitution is, they are agreeing to that law for themselves.
Further, my understanding is that the policies with regard to monopolies and competition have already been agreed upon, hence, the 'European competition regulator' whose existence is made possible by The Treaty Establishing The European Community, article 81 [eu.int], at least I think it is 81. Either way, there is a list of what is already in play from that treaty with respect to fair competition here [eu.int].
Take a glance at The EU online [eu.int], and I would strongly suggest you do a modicum of research before spurting disinformation presented as fact.
People like you piss me off.
Re:This the same EU? (Score:2)
Re:This the same EU? (Score:2)
The EU is not like the UN, all talk and no action. It has real powers and has repeated demonstrated it is not afraid to use them.
What is their actual power to enforce these laws? Especially seeing as how banning Microsoft on a continent-wide level would be an infringement of each country's right to self-determination.
To join the EU, a member state has to pass "enabling legislation", which amongst other things implements the authority of the
Re:wtf (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, i know that's an old article, but it would more than likely be similar. When worked out as a 8hr day (9-5), i got $65,400 - not quite $5 million a day.
Re:wtf (Score:4, Informative)
8 hours x (3000 + (2000 x 34) + 1000) = $576,000
I can't even see how you got $65,400.
Re:Explain to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Explain to me... (Score:4, Insightful)
The main difference between the bundling of applications that goes into the making of any Linux distribution and the bundling of applications and services Microsoft does with Windows (XP especially) is that the bundling Microsoft does is irreversible, you cannot remove Windows Media Player without it seriously hindering the system, you cannot remove Internet Explorer without doing likewise. Windows Messenger often bothers many newcomers to XP who are unaware of how to remove it completely (Granted, a Google search will cure most any problem like that).
I would not mind at all that Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, or any of their other products, so long as they provide the ability to easily and safely remove those and not damage the system's base. They made the OS require all these applications as dependencies, they're more than able to re-work the sytem to accommodate competitors and make it much easier for them to settle in.
Another thing is that we have yet to see a Linux distributor sued for anti-competitive practices that are illegal.
Re:Explain to me... (Score:5, Informative)
If I make 1% of all cars on the road, and decide to 'bundle' the cars with a certain roadmap, that's OK. Other mapmakers can still compete, consumers still have choice, that choice allows them to exert pressure on the mapmakers to improve their product. This is how capitalism is supposed to work: consumers vote with their wallets to make producers compete.
If I make 90% of all cars on the road and do the same bundling, other mapmakers are effectively excluded from the market. Consumers no longer have any choice, therefore no way to exert pressure on the mapmaker to improve the product.
As an example, plot the 'growth' in IE. During BrowserWar1 (IE vs Netscape) IE improved in leaps and bounds. Then it was mostly dormant for a few years (except for patches). Now, with BrowserWar2 (IE vs Firefox) IE is being improved again (IE7 is being released with tabbed browsing).
competition = choice = power for consumers = better products
monopoly = no choice = powerless consumers = stagnation
Re:Fighting back? (Score:2)
Cutting back on sales would hurt them long term.
A more likely way to fight back would be to get the US government on their side, how a US company was being picked upon because it was succeeding, the EU is doing anti-US actions at the French behest, etc, etc.
The end result is we'll probably end up with another unsatisfactory compromise. Indeed
Re:Fighting back? (Score:4, Informative)
In Denmark they have threathened to fire 800 employees [ffii.org] at Navision if software patents are not legalized in Europe.
That'll teach em! (Score:2)
The "IBM trick" works best for jobs that you were planning to move anyway, like R&D outsourcing. And I'm not sure IBM is doing this just to piss of the EU.
Re:Why exactly.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why exactly.. (Score:4, Interesting)
> all available in a default install - IE, install Windows, and it gives you a
> menu of which player you want installed. Same with Linux.
Hmm OK. If that's exactly what Microsoft would have done from the start -- include only the most popular players in a default install -- everyone would still be using Netscape and RealPlayer.
Afterall, those were the most popular applications before microsoft started pushing them out of the market. At the time, IE & MediaPlayer were hardly better, so they would only have gained a marginal momentum if they'd had to compete on equal terms.
So yes, your suggestion sounds great, and yes, it would have made Windows a much weaker product (from a marketing perspective).
Re:Why exactly.. (Score:2)
The main difference is that Linux uses non-descriminatory rules to pick the programs in the default install, and is not for financial gain in a market other than operating systems.
Re:Why exactly.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is an OEM free to sell a Windows computer with a competing media player instead of Windows Media Player?